Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 03/12/2025. In which, claims 1-20 are pending and being considered, claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phrase “disclosed” is stated on line 2 of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term “Wi-Fi” stated on Par. (0019-0020) of the specification, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahmbhatt et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210174302, hereinafter referred to as “Brahmbhatt”) and Galvin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220210147, hereinafter referred to as “Galvin”) further in view of Clauson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240289470, hereinafter referred to as “Clauson”)
In regards to Claim 1, Brahmbhatt teaches a method for providing indirect and visualization access to data of a data-lake, the method comprising: (Par. (0004, 0019); data lake (data source that includes data lake) and visualization access (display and access to data consumer the data in data source structure) with indirect access (data consumer through data provider giving access to data source that includes data lake))
receiving, by a processor and via a semantic schema layer (SSL), a user request from a user to access the data of the data-lake, (Par. (0033-0035); requesting by data consumer access to data source using sematic layer)), (Par. (0019); data source includes data lake)), (Par. (0004, 0028); receiving a user request (receiving data request) from a user to access data of the data lake(request from consumer corresponding to data of data source that is data lake))
determining, by the processor and via the SSL, a user profile from a plurality of user profiles associated with the user based on a first level of authentication, (Par. (0026); access to data source that includes data lake corresponds to data profile with sematic layer)), (Par. (0033-0034); based on a first level of authentication (data profiles correspond to levels of access)), (Par. (0046-0048); based on a first level of authentication (levels of approval to access data))
wherein the plurality of user profiles corresponds to a plurality of users, and (Par. (0022, 0026); different users with plurality of data profiles))
selectively rendering, by the processor and via the UAL, a portion of the data of the data-lake requested in the user request based on a second level of authentication, (Par. (0054-0058, 0064); selectively rendering a portion of the data (extracted details of data/metadata associated with data lake), (Par (0047, 0052-0053); requested in the user request based on a second level of authentication (data that is requested is based on levels of approval etc. level 1, level 2, level 3 and level 4)) (Par. (0068); by the processor and via a user access layer (UAL),(module with user interface tier that provides access with layers))
Brahmbhatt does not explicitly teach wherein the user request comprises a domain object name, a public key and a private key; wherein the first level of authentication is based on the domain object name and the public key; determining, by the processor and via a user access layer (UAL), a user defined function (UDF) from a plurality of predefined UDFs associated with the user profile based on the first level of authentication; and wherein the second level of the authentication is based on the domain object name and the private key, and wherein the portion of the data is retrieved from the data-lake based on the UDFs and the second level of authentication.
Wherein Galvin teaches wherein the user request comprises a domain object name, a public key and a private key; (Par. (0026-0027, 0032); user request (request of behalf of the user) comprises domain object name (request includes domain name object and public key))
wherein the first level of authentication is based on the domain object name and the public key; ((Par. (0029); first level of authentication (level of trust) based on the public key (level of trust with public key and domain name objects))
wherein the second level of the authentication is based on the domain object name and the private key, and (Par. (0046, 0029); second level of authentication (trust anchors corresponding to level of trust that use domain name object and public keys))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt to incorporate the teaching of Galvin to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of user requests and levels of authentication within a storage system, with the motivation of preventing unauthorized access to networks associated with domain names by creating a solution based on identification information to prevent compromise in the system and establish a secure connection. (Galvin Par. (0002-0005))
Brahmbhatt and Galvin do not explicitly teach determining, by the processor and via a user access layer (UAL), a user defined function (UDF) from a plurality of predefined UDFs associated with the user profile based on the first level of authentication; and wherein the portion of the data is retrieved from the data-lake based on the UDFs and the second level of authentication.
Wherein Clauson teaches determining, by the processor and via a user access layer (UAL), a user defined function (UDF) from a plurality of predefined UDFs associated with the user profile based on the first level of authentication; and (Par. (0068-0069, 0108-0109); determining, by the processor and via a user access layer (UAL) (UAR ingesting and detecting functions of UDFs) associated with the user profile based on the first level of authentication (with access privileges and roles with data and UDF)), (Par. (0018); associated with the user profile (user accounts with data)), (Par. (0073); via a user access layer (UAL) (UAR that has tiers of access and management))
wherein the portion of the data is retrieved from the data-lake based on the UDFs and the second level of authentication. (Par. (0027); data from data lake), (Par. (0108-0111); the portion of the data is retrieved (obtaining transformed data based on the UDFs and the second level of authentication (based on UDF and second list of access privileges))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt and Galvin to incorporate the teaching of Clauson to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of levels of authentication associated with UDP, data lakes and various storage system, with the motivation of limiting security risks of enormous storage systems to ensure appropriate access and review to prevent errors. (Galvin Par. (0002-0003))
In regards to Claims 9 and 17, claims 9 and 17 are independent claims that recite similar limitations to the method of claim 1 and the teachings of Brahmbhatt, Galvin and Clauson address all the limitations discussed in independent claim 1 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahmbhatt et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210174302, hereinafter referred to as “Brahmbhatt”), Galvin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220210147, hereinafter referred to as “Galvin”), Clauson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240289470, hereinafter referred to as “Clauson”) and Carru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230401326, hereinafter referred to as “Carru”) further in view of Li et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240330283, hereinafter referred to as “Li”)
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Brahmbhatt, Galvin and Clauson do not explicitly teach creating, by the processor and via the UAL, each of the plurality of UDFs associated with the user profile, wherein the each of the plurality of UDFs are communicatively coupled to a query management layer (QML) of the data-lake, creating, by the processor and via the UAL, for each of the plurality of UDFs, a unique query and a unique schema.
Wherein Carru teaches creating, by the processor and via the UAL, each of the plurality of UDFs associated with the user profile, (Par. (0017-0018); creating, by the processor and via the UAL, each of the plurality of UDFs (creating UDF objects by data platform)), (Par. (0087-0090); plurality of UDFs associated with the user profile (plurality of UDF’s that are assigned string with owner of account))
creating, by the processor and via the UAL, for each of the plurality of UDFs, a unique query and a unique schema. (Par. (0017-0018); creating, by the processor and via the UAL, for each of the plurality of UDF (creating UDF objects by data platform) a unique query (data platform with UDF and commanding query with code fragments)), (Par.(0090); and a unique schema (data platform and UDF with particular schema object))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin and Clauson to incorporate the teaching of Carru to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of UDF functions and secure protection of storage systems, with the motivation of creating a secure channel and data boundaries to manage application and eliminate costs. By using a query management retrieval of data is based on roles and interactions. (Carru Par. (0003 and 0028))
Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson and Carru do not explicitly teach wherein the each of the plurality of UDFs are communicatively coupled to a query management layer (QML) of the data-lake,
Wherein Li teaches wherein the each of the plurality of UDFs are communicatively coupled to a query management layer (QML) of the data-lake, (Par. (0042); data lake (data storage e.g. data lake), (Par. (0046-0049); the portion of the data is retrieved from the data-lake (data is retrieved from data lake (data storage) by establishing a connection between QML (computer service manager is QML that manages queries and retrieval of data corresponding to UDF))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson and Carru to incorporate the teaching of Li to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of data lakes and UDF’s, with the motivation of preventing vulnerabilities in a system to test against unverified or untrusted parties without risk or harm on UDF’s running in the environment. (Li Par. (0023))
In regards to Claims 10 and 18, claims 10 and 18 recite similar limitations to claim 2 and the teachings of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru and Li address all the limitations discussed in claim 2 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahmbhatt et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210174302, hereinafter referred to as “Brahmbhatt”), Galvin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220210147, hereinafter referred to as “Galvin”), Clauson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240289470, hereinafter referred to as “Clauson”), Carru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230401326, hereinafter referred to as “Carru”) and Li et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240330283, hereinafter referred to as “Li”) further in view of Damien Carru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240062197, hereinafter referred to as “Damien Carru”)
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru and Li do not explicitly teach wherein a corresponding query and a corresponding schema associated with the UDF are created based on an access level from a plurality of access levels associated with the user profile.
Wherein Damien Carru teaches wherein a corresponding query and a corresponding schema associated with the UDF are created based on an access level from a plurality of access levels associated with the user profile. (Par. (0023); schema with UDF based on privileges to grant access with accounts)), (Par. (0074); queries and schema with UDF associated with account and access levels (roles and schema))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru and Li to incorporate the teaching of Damien Carru to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of data lakes and UDF’s, with the motivation of preventing unauthorized access on secure storage systems with sensitive information and allowing parties to query set data and share without modification. (Damien Carru Par. (0003))
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson and Carru do not explicitly teach wherein the portion of the data is retrieved from the data-lake by establishing a connection between the UAL and the QML and by executing the corresponding query associated with the UDF.
Wherein Li teaches wherein the portion of the data is retrieved from the data-lake by establishing a connection between the UAL and the QML and by executing the corresponding query associated with the UDF. (Par. (0042); data lake (data storage e.g. data lake), (Par. (0046-0049); the portion of the data is retrieved from the data-lake (data is retrieved from data lake (data storage) by establishing a connection between QML (computer service manager is QML that manages queries and retrieval of data corresponding to UDF)), (Par. (0058, 0065); establishing a connection between the UAL and the QML (QML with connection to UAL (access manager) that have access to associated UDF))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru and Damien Carru to incorporate the teaching of Li to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of data lakes and UDF’s, with the motivation of preventing vulnerabilities in a system to test against unverified or untrusted parties without risk or harm on UDF’s running in the environment. (Li Par. (0023))
In regards to Claims 11-12 and 19-20, claims 11-12 and 19-20 recite similar limitations to claims 3-4 and the teachings of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li and Damien Carru address all the limitations discussed in claims 3-4 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 5 and13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahmbhatt et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210174302, hereinafter referred to as “Brahmbhatt”), Galvin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220210147, hereinafter referred to as “Galvin”), Clauson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240289470, hereinafter referred to as “Clauson”), Carru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230401326, hereinafter referred to as “Carru”), Li et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240330283, hereinafter referred to as “Li”), Damien Carru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240062197, hereinafter referred to as “Damien Carru”) and Hambardzumyan et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240232199, hereinafter referred to as “Hambardzumyan”) further in view of Sundaram et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20200372169, hereinafter referred to as “Sundaram”)
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li and Damien Carru do not explicitly teach wherein the corresponding query of the UDF from the plurality of UDFs enables selective retrieval of the portion of the data of the data-lake by encrypting, masking, and hiding of the data of the data-lake.
Wherein Hambardzumyan teaches wherein the corresponding query of the UDF from the plurality of UDFs enables selective retrieval of the portion of the data of the data-lake by masking, and hiding of the data of the data-lake. (Par. (0097-0098, 0101); query the UDF and query string for UDF’s), (Par. (0063-0064); retrieve portions of data from data lake and masks the images), (Par. (0055-0057, 0060); hiding of the data of the data lake (hidden metadata corresponding to data lake))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li and Damien Carru to incorporate the teaching of Hambardzumyan to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of secure storage with UDF’s, with the motivation of creating solutions to querying databases and storage to perform efficient datasets to prevent exposure to UDF functions. (Hambardzumyan Par. (0003-0004 and 0087))
Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li, Damien Carru and Hambardzumyan do not explicitly teach encrypting, the data of the data-lake.
Wherein Sundaram teaches encrypting, the data of the data-lake. (Par. (0004); encrypting data of data lake))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li, Damien Carru and Hambardzumyan to incorporate the teaching of Sundaram to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of secure storage with data lakes, with the motivation of preventing manipulation of data and encrypting data objects in the data lake without sacrificing the integrity of the data. (Sundaram Par. (0002-0005))
In regards to Claim 13, claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 5 and the teachings of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li, Damien Carru, Hambardzumyan and Sundaram address all the limitations discussed in claim 5 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahmbhatt et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210174302, hereinafter referred to as “Brahmbhatt”), Galvin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220210147, hereinafter referred to as “Galvin”), Clauson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240289470, hereinafter referred to as “Clauson”), Carru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20230401326, hereinafter referred to as “Carru”), Li et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240330283, hereinafter referred to as “Li”) and Damien Carru et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240062197, hereinafter referred to as “Damien Carru”) further in view of Jeong et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240134849, hereinafter referred to as “Jeong”)
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li and Damien Carru do not explicitly teach wherein the corresponding schema of the UDF from the plurality of UDFs enables the selective rendering of the portion of the data of the data-lake based on a data representation format.
Wherein Jeong teaches wherein the corresponding schema of the UDF from the plurality of UDFs enables the selective rendering of the portion of the data of the data-lake based on a data representation format. (Par. (0095); corresponding schema of the UDF from the plurality of UDFs (schema with UDF), (Par. (0066-0069); enables the selective rendering of the portion of the data ( UDF and selecting portion of data of the data lake (selecting attributes of table), (Par. (0057-0059); selective rendering of the portion of the data of the data-lake (table corresponding to data lake that includes portions of table data that is selected) based on a data representation format (table associated with data lake is formatted))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li and Damien Carru to incorporate the teaching of Jeong to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of data lakes with UDF’s, with the motivation of managing data with different formats and issues of remote access to data stored. (Jeong Par. (0002-0004))
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson teach the method of claim 1, Brahmbhatt further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the data representation format comprises selection of a format and (Par. 0021-0025); data representation format (interface and each data consumer able to see with format in table, attributes and specific columns) selection of a formation par. (0025); data that can be pulled by accessing table))
a structure of data in each of a plurality of data fields in a table representing the portion of the data. (Par.(0023); semantic layer and data fields with structure and specific columns in a table associated to data structure))
In regards to Claims 14-15, claims 14-15 recites similar limitations to claims 6-7 and the teachings of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson, Carru, Li, Damien Carru and Jeong address all the limitations discussed in claims 6-7 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brahmbhatt et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20210174302, hereinafter referred to as “Brahmbhatt”) Galvin et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20220210147, hereinafter referred to as “Galvin”) and Clauson et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20240289470, hereinafter referred to as “Clauson”) further in view of Lawrence et al. (U.S No. 11900455, hereinafter referred to as “Lawrence”)
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Brahmbhatt, Galvin and Clauson do not explicitly teach wherein the public key is stored within the SSL and the private key is input by the user.
Wherein Lawrence teaches wherein the public key is stored within the SSL and (Col. 19 lines 19-45; storing public key within SSL (storing public encryption keys in CCS that is semantic and multi-layer network)
the private key is input by the user. (Col. 39 lines 30-41); users public cryptographic encryption key and user’s private cryptographic encryption key are used to input))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brahmbhatt, Galvin and Clauson to incorporate the teaching of Lawrence to utilize the above feature because of the analogous concept of semantic layers within storage system retrieval, with the motivation of authentication of confidential information and preventing various attacks, such as phishing attacks by hackers and creating secure authentication and more importantly secure storage of information. (Lawrence Col 1 lines 45-67 and Col. 2 lines 1-15))
In regards to Claim 16, claim 16 recites similar limitations to claim 8 and the teachings of Brahmbhatt, Galvin, Clauson and Lawrence address all the limitations discussed in claim 8 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kaplan; Benjamin (U.S Pub. No. 20250165643) “SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROTECTING DATA USING A PERSONAL DATA STORE CONTROLLED BY THE DATA SUBJECT”. Considered this reference because it addressed encryption key, storage objects and access techniques.
Holom; Adrian Daniel (U.S Pub. No. 20250200152) “TWO-LEVEL AUTHENTICATION FOR SECURE ASSETS”. Considered this application because it relates authentication levels and access control of assets within a storage system.
McCay; Lawrence Joseph (U.S Pub. No. 20250307005) “METHODS AND APPARATUS TO ACCESS FEDERATED RESOURCES”. Considered this application because it addressed request to access data lakes and portions of data retrieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights